Big media versus the people

Attempts to break with neoliberal politics are spreading. After Syriza in Greece comes the surprise election of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK (see The unspun Jeremy Corbyn, page 4), and there may soon be an awakening in Spain. As the Greek experience shows, these developments do not always flourish, but at least some of the obstacles are now clear: the financial markets, multinational corporations, credit rating agencies, the Eurogroup, the IMF, the European Central Bank, Germany’s monetarist policy and its social-liberal acolytes. The power of these players and the convergence of their interests help explain the caution and capitulation of some, and the suffering and hesitations of others. But that is only a partial diagnosis; a critical element is missing. It is often discussed in Le Monde diplomatique, but mostly ignored elsewhere, especially by the political forces that should pay it the greatest attention.

That element was revealed in all its perniciousness in Greece when Syriza stood up to EU diktats; it was instantly unleashed in the UK against Corbyn as the new leader of the Labour Party; and it will be visible again if Podemos wins the Spanish election in December. It has been systematically reconfigured in France in the past six months — the steady advance of a media barrier able to block any project counter to shareholder interests.

Since media proprietors are also the architects of industrial concentration and beneficiaries of huge market capitalisations, this is hardly a surprise. In France, six of the 10 richest people now own media groups (1), and one, Patrick Drahi, has also recently shot to the top of Israel’s rich list (2). The media sector shapes public attitudes, the economy, culture, leisure and education, but it is hard to detect any political attempt to check the danger, as though politicians had other priorities and emergencies, and were content to wait and see on this score.

We saw what happened when Alexis Tsipras’s government came to power in Greece in January, relying, rashly, on the solidarity of European peoples who had suffered from austerity policies, and thinking that would make it easier to resist German inflexibility. Many reasons linked to the fragmentation and weakness of Syriza’s allies, political and in the union movement, across Europe explain why those hopes have been dashed. But an important factor should not be overlooked: media treatment of Greece distorted the terms of the debate and tried to create worry in European public opinion about what the cancellation of Greek debt would mean for “every French person” (or German, Spaniard, Italian, Slovak) (3). The main news outlets — including those with a taste for post-national sermonising — found a sure-fire way to contain a continent-wide movement of solidarity with the Greek left. In a different media landscape, Greece might not have been described as a debtor likely to worsen its creditors’ problems, but as the leader of a Europe-wide battle against a failed austerity policy.

There has never been a similar media fixation with precisely calculating, and stressing, the social cost of 30 years of lower tax rates for the richest, or bailouts for private banks, for “every French person”. Western creditors, inflexible over Greek debt, agreed on 27 August to a partial write-off of Ukraine’s debt, but the financial press did not calculate what this risked “costing every French person”. No TV channel broadcast street vox pop of the reactions of terrified bystanders to the dreadful personal effects of that debt relief.

‘We are not getting our message heard’

João Pedro Stédile of the MST (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra, Landless Workers’ Movement), interviewed in August about difficulties in Brazil caused by an economic slowdown and corruption scandals, said that “the people are worried when they watch news about the crisis on TV and see the lack of alternative [...] We are not getting our message heard, partly because the media is owned by the middle class.” He believes Brazil’s main media group, Rede Globo, functions as an ideological party, a place where the unity of the dominant class is cemented (4). It is like Fox News, the refuge and armed wing of the US Republican Party.

Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, as is the Sun in the UK and the Wall Street Journal. At first glance, a rolling news channel that is a favourite with American retirees, a British tabloid until recently known for its bare breasts and scandals, and New York’s daily business newspaper have little in common. But Murdoch’s aim is not to be editorially coherent for the benefit of the public, but to be a force to be reckoned with. The only link between a mass market daily such as Le Parisien-Aujourd’hui en France, Radio Classique and Les Echos, the largest French business daily, is that they are all owned by Bernard Arnault. The same is true for Patrick Drahi’s Libération, RMC, L’Express and BFMTV; and Direct Matin,Canal Plus and CNews (formerly iTélé) run, ruthlessly, by the French industrialist Vincent Bolloré. In the absence of resistance in jittery and silent newsrooms, or legislative intervention, each new concentration of ownership encourages the next. In May, François Morel, CEO of Les Echos, explained the purchase of the paper by Arnault’s Parisien-Aujourd’hui en France press group: “I’ve put Les Echos back on its feet, but that isn’t enough. One player cannot stand alone in such a highly concentrated world without putting himself at risk. Having analysed the market, the most logical choice was the Parisien” (5).

In August, Nonce Paolini, head of the TF1 TV channel, said the media sector, as divided among capitalist mastodons, was so consolidated that there was no reason to prevent his company broadcasting his LCI (La Chaîne Info) rolling news channel on TNT freeview: “There are no longer isolated, vulnerable groups, only powerful players who invest. The fear of some players being weakened by the arrival of LCI on freeview is yesterday’s news” (6). Given the €30bn capitalisation of Drahi’s group (which has just acquired BFMTV) and the €9bn of Bolloré’s group (which has tightened its control of iTélé), TF1 may soon look like a small, impoverished outfit. Any government insufficiently respectful of neoliberalism’s sacred cows would have reason to think twice before taking on these organisations.

Arnault was a witness at Nicolas Sarkozy’s wedding. Bolloré lent Sarkozy his yacht soon after he became president. It’s a safe bet that Drahi, a relative newcomer in France, will also soon be a familiar face in political circles. Laurent Joffrin and Christophe Barbier, both newspaper editors in Drahi’s company, should be able to help since Joffrin is a friend of François Hollande and Barbier of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. Such friendships aren’t hard to make with a press group worth several billion euros behind you. In June, Xavier Niel (tenth richest person in France and the partner of Arnault’s daughter) attended the wedding of Anne-Michèle Basteri, executive director of Niel’s personal holding company, and Pierre Moscovici, former French Socialist finance minister and current EU Commissioner for economic and financial affairs. He would have bumped into Hollande there.

And in the UK too

France is not unique. An official report in 2012 into happenings at Murdoch’s News of the World revealed that “the political parties of UK national Government and of UK official Opposition have had or developed too close a relationship with the press in a way which has not been in the public interest. [...] [The press] are also highly skilled, at the level of some proprietors, editors and senior executives, at subtle and intuitive lobbying in the context of personal relationships and friendships” (7). Corbyn, who avoids involvement with the media, must know what awaits him; Murdoch’s Sunday Times headlined his victory with “Corbyn sparks Labour civil war”. There is little hope, in such adverse ideological and media conditions, of communicating dissenting views to those not already attracted or committed. I could cite failures of media propaganda in the French referendum of 2005 and the Greek one in July, where the indignation caused by the dominant media’s unanimity provoked popular mobilisation, and contributed to the simple refusal of the EU treaty and of the troika’s diktat. Stathis Kouvelakis, a leader of the Greek left, believes that “the fact that the yes camp mobilised hated politicians, commentators, business leaders and media celebrities simply inflamed the class reaction” favourable to a no vote (8). Not engaging in the struggle against the dominant news system is a miscalculation as well as an intellectual failure, the more so as critiquing the media is often a way into politics for the young, who are bombarded with news and comment and mistrustful of professional journalism.

But potential victories will have no impact, and indignation will remain impotent, without a radical reconfiguration of the news system. Last December, Le Monde diplomatique proposed such a project (9). Now we have to move forward; we shall apply ourselves to the task, strengthened by our independence. The problems of traditional journalism will soon arise in the digital space — indeed, they already do. It is vain to imagine the web will create a new mass media, free of the logic of domination that applies elsewhere. A marginal site that we and our friends like has no special power, no impact, if it’s only us who read it; it’s still marginal even if it’s digital. Should we angrily tweet our social media contacts? Making ourselves angry by searching out unacceptable opinions on inflammatory sites is tiring — and futile. Attempting to understand things is a better way to prepare to fight, although it risks Le Monde diplomatique being misunderstood among media professionals.

Yet our originality does seem to resonate. Since 2009 we have made an annual appeal to our French readers to strengthen our independence through donations and subscriptions. There was an increase in both in 2014. Donations in France of €296,000 (compared with €242,000 in 2013) through the Press and Pluralism association were more than triple our advertising revenue. French subscriber numbers increased by 8.7% in the 12 months from August 2014, and newsstand sales picked up, so it is probable that 2015 will be the first French circulation increase since 2008. These results, if confirmed, will be all the more encouraging as they will buck the general trend (10). Thanks to your involvement and donations, the financial situation of the French edition has improved. The continuity of our readers’ support enables us to start new projects — from this month, our French site has a new look, and soon it will have a multi-lingual archive — while trying to hold our prices at the same rates as for the past three years. It should also give us the means to expand our editorial efforts, including analysing the ground shifting beneath our feet.

Our means may be modest, but our ambitions are large. In an angry time, a culture founded on speed, gossip, and approximation may serve the needs of business and industrial interests, but it brings huge social and political risks. The dismantling of France’s labour legislation on the pretext of encouraging employment, building walls against immigrants on the pretext of preserving national cohesion, engaging in a new military campaign on the pretext of containing war: in such an ominous ideological climate, an independent publication is more necessary than ever. It speaks to readers who demand perspective, who have had enough of being bombarded with trivial news and emotions meant to be consumed, digested and forgotten. It encourages resistance where so much is trying to crush it.

LMD in English

Serge Halimi writes above that attempts to break with neoliberal politics are spreading, as we have seen in Greece and in the UK Labour Party, and may perhaps see later on this year in Spain. Yet the mainstream media are overwhelmingly hostile to such signs of progress. That makes voices such as Le Monde diplomatique’s all the more necessary.

Our voice should be heard loud and clear. After all, Le Monde diplomatique appears in dozens of print and online editions across the globe — 37 in all — in 20 languages. That includes all the major western languages, Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, Esperanto, Finnish, Hungarian, Polish, Croatian, Bulgarian, Japanese and Korean. Some appear in major publications with wide circulations; others are published only online, some of them pro bono. These, with our parent French edition, give us a total circulation of two million worldwide.

LMD in English is, perhaps surprisingly, one of the smaller editions in the Monde diplomatique family. We do not carry advertising and do not have the means to promote ourselves commercially, so it’s hard to reach out beyond our loyal existing readership to increase our subscriber base. However, it is heart-warming how many of you regularly respond to our appeals to give subscriptions to LMD as gifts — in print, online or in PDF format. And last year, after one of our contributors said he wanted to donate to our edition, we put a Donate button on our website. We are thrilled by the generous response.

As you know, LMD’s revenue comes purely from our subscribers, and sales in selected bookstores and newsstands.

Some of you will remember that LMD in English began online in 1997; a couple of years later it appeared in print. Now you can read it on tablets, iPhones and computers via iTunes or the App Store, and buy it month by month. Or you can subscribe to our digital edition at www.mondediplo.com and get full access to our unique 18-year online archive, for just £19 (approx €23 or US$30). Or you can enjoy a package deal of our print edition, delivered to your door, plus full access to our archive. This outstanding resource makes LMD valuable to institutions as well as individual readers; and our Institutional edition, offering tailor-made access across organisations, is growing ever more popular with universities, libraries, thinktanks, government departments and NGOs.

If we are to remain independent in this harsh media landscape, we rely more than ever on you, our readers. So please keep your subscriptions and gifts coming. — Wendy Kristianasen

(3) In France, the campaign was launched by Le Figaro on 8 January 2015 (“Chaque Français paierait 735 euros pour l’effacement de la dette grecque” (Every French person will pay €735 to wipe out Greek debt)). It was taken up by most media, in particular by France’s two main TV channels, TF1 and France 2.